InCRL.M.C. 2167/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Embassy Hotel Managing Partners in employee's electrocution case; says High Court's power to quash FIRs through legal heirs extends to non-compoundable offences
Justice Amit Sharma [22-11-2023]

Read Order: Sunil Malhotra & Anr. V. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 23, 2023: The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against the managing partners of Embassy Hotel in Connaught Place for the death of an employee due to electrocution.

The factual matrix of the case was that the present case involved the death of one Rakesh, employed in the kitchen of Embassy Hotel, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He had suffered an electric shock while lifting a cylinder, leading to his subsequent demise. The post-mortem had revealed that the cause of death was ‘electrocution and its complications’. Further investigation at the crime scene had resulted in the seizure of electrical wires and a cylinder, and CCTV footage was obtained for additional insights. The Electrical Inspector's report had highlighted the unsafe manner in which electric wires supplying power to a sensor of the sewage treatment plant were laid, pointing towards a breach of safety regulations. The Managing Partners of Embassy Hotel were arrested and interrogated, during which they had accepted responsibility for the hotel's management and day-to-day affairs. Following their interrogation, the petitioners were released on bail. Based on the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the petitioners under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that a settlement had been reached between the petitioners and the deceased's father. This settlement was documented in the Memorandum of Settlement. As per the submission, the father of the deceased had expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. It was also indicated that the father had been duly compensated in accordance with the settlement terms, including the release of amounts to which he was legally entitled, such as life insurance, provident fund, pension, and gratuity.

On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State had opposed the present petition, emphasizing that the report of the Electrical Inspector established prima facie evidence of the petitioners' gross negligence. The APP argued that despite the settlement reached between the parties, the critical factor of the petitioners' gross negligence contributing to the individual's death could not be overlooked. It was further submitted that the offence under Section 304A of the IPC was not merely a private offence. It was a public offence, with far reaching consequences on the social fabric.

The single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Amit Sharma, referred to the case of Satyam Kaushik v. State and Ors. [LQ/DelHC/2015/2766], where a Single Judge of this Court had quashed an FIR under Section 279/304A of the IPC. The decision was based on the absence of culpable negligence on the part of the petitioner, and a settlement, that had been reached between the parties, with the legal heirs of the deceased duly compensated.

The bench also referred to the judgment rendered in Bhanwar Singh v. State and Anr. [LQ/DelHC/2021/1508], where a co-ordinate bench of this Court had quashed an FIR under Section 288/304A of the IPC. In this case, the deceased, while carrying out some construction work, had fallen from the third floor of the petitioner's house, which was under construction, resulting in his death. The observation was that the incident was purely accidental, and since the parties had amicably resolved the dispute, continuing with the proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Further, the bench observed that it was a settled principle of law that in cases of non-compoundable offences, where the parties had arrived at a settlement, the High Court possessed inherent power to quash a criminal proceeding. This power was exercised under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was reiterated that the inherent powers of the High Court were of a wide plenitude, and in their exercise, the guiding factors should be to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court.

Additionally, the bench held that since the scheme of the Cr.P.C. permitted compounding through legal heirs in respect of offences 'compoundable' under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the extraordinary and inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be invoked to quash FIRs through legal heirs in cases of non-compoundable offences as well.

“Criminality in case of negligence arises when there is no consciousness as to the consequences which may follow but circumstances are such that shows it was incumbent upon the actor to take certain precautions. It is further settled law that for a negligent act to give rise to a criminal liability, the negligence ought to be ‘gross’, which is a standard to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case,” further observed the bench.

The bench heldthat in the said case, the prosecution had failed to establish through evidence that the petitioners demonstrated wanton disregard or deliberate breach of duty to take ordinary care and precaution, which are essential elements to categorize the case as 'gross negligence.' The report from the Electricity Inspector, on which the prosecution relied, pertained to an inspection conducted post-incident, and there was no evidence to suggest that the broken PVC conduit pipe was attributed to the petitioners prior to the incident. Additionally, there was no indication that the petitioners had knowledge of the broken pipe before the incident occurred.

The bench also noted that the petitioners had fulfilled the statutory requirements regarding the payments to be made to the deceased. Additionally, it was noted that the petitioners had already complied with the terms of the settlement and had paid the compensation to the deceased's father. In light of the foregoing discussion, the bench opined that the interest of justice would be better served if the present FIR, along with all consequent proceedings, were quashed.

Consequently, the petition was allowed, and in view thereof, the FIR under Section 304A of the IPC and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi, were hereby quashed.